bit-tech's Top 10 Games of 2007

Comments 51 to 75 of 101

Man there were so many good games this year its not even funny! I guess everyone's list is going to be a little different, personally I would've placed Halo 3 and Mass Effect muuuuuch higher and I've never even heard of S.T.A.W.T.F.L.K.E.R but that's just me. Also it seemed to me (from reading reviews throughout the interwebs) that Crysis didn't have much going for it besides it's ridiculous graphics. Seems kind of odd that it's higher on a list than both Halo 3 and CoD4.

I agree the orange box as game of the yr, thats where it ends. You can drop all console
games I'm a pc gamer although I do miss that little plumber mario from many yrs ago. here
is my pc list:
1-the orange box
2-cod 4
3-crysis
4-bioshock
5-stalker
I rated the orange box 1st as a package deal not any one game in the package other wise
cod4 would have been my choice for game of the year

I don't know if Bioshock would have made my top 10.
I would have had CoD4 higher as the multiplayer is brilliant, I just hope they introduce larger maps soon though.
Only played a couple of hour of Crysis and damn it's fun, and looks great even on an X1950 Pro.

Originally Posted by Cadillac FerdMan there were so many good games this year its not even funny! I guess everyone's list is going to be a little different, personally I would've placed Halo 3 and Mass Effect muuuuuch higher and I've never even heard of S.T.A.W.T.F.L.K.E.R but that's just me. Also it seemed to me (from reading reviews throughout the interwebs) that Crysis didn't have much going for it besides it's ridiculous graphics. Seems kind of odd that it's higher on a list than both Halo 3 and CoD4.

Originally Posted by Cadillac FerdMan there were so many good games this year its not even funny! I guess everyone's list is going to be a little different, personally I would've placed Halo 3 and Mass Effect muuuuuch higher and I've never even heard of S.T.A.W.T.F.L.K.E.R but that's just me. Also it seemed to me (from reading reviews throughout the interwebs) that Crysis didn't have much going for it besides it's ridiculous graphics. Seems kind of odd that it's higher on a list than both Halo 3 and CoD4.

well, seems like we've got a xbox360 gamer here.

STALKER was one of the major release for FPS-RPG game, as for Crysis, you need to fully experience it to know how great it is. sure, the gameplay gets old after a while, but that doesn't make it a bad game, in fact, i consider Crysis to be up there, with Bioshock and Orange Box because of its developer's courage to push the boundaries of gaming.

'bit-tech's Top 10 Games of 2007' - Should have been 'Top 10 Single player Games of 2007'

'When the dust cleared, Quake Wars was left dead and bleeding, while UT3 managed to walk calmly out, secure in the knowledge that its delicate balance of complex mechanics and streamlined game design made it the most superior multiplayer shooter on the market.'

I'm really beginning to tire of people who don't play games competitively and are completely linear in their opinions about what makes a good game. The list is nearly completely fps dominated and some of the choices are just ludicrous. I would happily spend 2000-3000 hours playing CoD4 multi-player over the next year or two and yet some bug infested **** like Unreal Tournament 3 or STALKER ranks beside or above it.

I guarantee if half of those games didn't have the budget to invest so heavily into graphics, the developers wouldn't know what to do or how to make a 'good' game. There is a reason why the most successful and popular games of all time are still played and it has nothing to do with graphics.

Originally Posted by evanbraakensiek'bit-tech's Top 10 Games of 2007' - Should have been 'Top 10 Single player Games of 2007'

'When the dust cleared, Quake Wars was left dead and bleeding, while UT3 managed to walk calmly out, secure in the knowledge that its delicate balance of complex mechanics and streamlined game design made it the most superior multiplayer shooter on the market.'

I'm really beginning to tire of people who don't play games competitively and are completely linear in their opinions about what makes a good game. The list is nearly completely fps dominated and some of the choices are just ludicrous. I would happily spend 2000-3000 hours playing CoD4 multi-player over the next year or two and yet some bug infested **** like Unreal Tournament 3 or STALKER ranks beside or above it.

I guarantee if half of those games didn't have the budget to invest so heavily into graphics, the developers wouldn't know what to do or how to make a 'good' game. There is a reason why the most successful and popular games of all time are still played and it has nothing to do with graphics.

Nice list. But you need to update the Mass Effect entry. Bioware is based in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada and has another office in Austin, Texas. Mass Effect was made in Edmonton. Austin is where their new MMO is being made.

I'm maybe about 1/2 - 2/3 of the way through Bioshock but I still don't quite get what the fuss is about. There has been almost 0 story from the point I started to the point I'm at now. Really what story is everyone talking about? Why should I have to experience the "story" through audio journals that I pick up every now and then which talk about something that happened before I arrived. I feel like I've missed the party and I'm here just to clean up the mess...

But like I said, I haven't finished it yet so maybe the story is yet to come. Also, it's just not much of an FPS either. The weapons are not very well balanced, there's too many types of ammo, there's too many ways to gaining ammo (why would there be vending machines for ammo in this utopian city - it doesn't feel right), (similarly, why would I want to collect glue and rubber tubing to create armour piercing machine gun ammo? - it's just completely bizarre). The only reason I feel I should kill the Splicers is to put them out of their misery - not because they present a mortal threat to me. Yes it does bring a sense of morality and choice to the experience but ultimately it just makes the gameplay unfulfilling - you have to kill these guys - there's no other choice so you may as well ignore your feelings of remorse and get on the with the job.

Killing big robots and stealing their adopted children to harvest their slugs is great fun until you realise that they aren't going to hurt you until you hurt them. That fact just seems to completely mitigate any feelings of suspense and fear you might have when you hear a heavy thumping in the distance. Killing big daddies just becomes a process of problem solving rather than something that relies on skill, reaction and initiative.

Ok, so a big rant. I haven't finished it yet I know and while it's a fun enough game to make want to keep playing it, I really don't see what the big deal is. The article mainly talked about the aspect of morality and choice but I don't really see what you guys are talking about - everything seems pretty linear to me. What else makes the game good? Can someone please explain?

Originally Posted by evanbraakensiek'bit-tech's Top 10 Games of 2007' - Should have been 'Top 10 Single player Games of 2007'

I think you must have missed all the games listed that do have good multiplayer. Halo 3, TF2, COD4 (one you did mention), World in Conflict all have great multiplayer even if you discount UT3 as being a "bug infested ****" as you refer to it.

Originally Posted by YemerichWelll I have sometimes this VERY WEIRD (not comparable to any other kind of sickness) kind of sickness too. Sickness that if i insist in playing is VERY unconfortable and can take a whole day to worn off. But only in some games. Portal is one. The problem seems to be because of small places. I had no problems playing Dark Messiah, Oblivion, Stalker and some other games...

Very strange...

The funny thing is in driving games I NEED the in car view but I just can't play FPS -shrug- It ussually takes about half an hour before I have to stop or... and it takes at least an hour to go away

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azmat...

Please use paragraphs & Welcome to the forums ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by €gr€sWhat about Test Drive Unlimited - too many FPS's i think :)

I'm thinking they need a category for FPS games and another list for other types - though I'm guessing that would be dominated by RTS - meh

Quote:

Originally Posted by MithentJust thought I'd note that BioWare didn't develop Planescape: Torment; that was Black Isle, part of Interplay (many of them went on to Obsidian). They did use BioWare's Infinity Engine, though, and BioWare's early games were also published through Black Isle - just to be confusing.

Originally Posted by evanbraakensiek'bit-tech's Top 10 Games of 2007' - Should have been 'Top 10 Single player Games of 2007'
...
I'm really beginning to tire of people who don't play games competitively and are completely linear in their opinions about what makes a good game. ...
...
I guarantee if half of those games didn't have the budget to invest so heavily into graphics, the developers wouldn't know what to do or how to make a 'good' game. There is a reason why the most successful and popular games of all time are still played and it has nothing to do with graphics.

It felt that way to more that just you and I but there were a FEW others.
...
I'm tired of (what feels like) almost every game being a big player vs player competition (most FPS & RTS games have at least an element of that). Can these guys make much else?
...
There is some truth in what you say.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smilinratNice list. But you need to update the Mass Effect entry. Bioware is based in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada and has another office in Austin, Texas. Mass Effect was made in Edmonton. Austin is where their new MMO is being made.

Shh, don't tell the "Americans", Welcome to the forums also ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woodstockthat list really shows how few computer rpgs are being made now

How few of anything but FPS (& RTS actually). The good news is that that fact has saved me a lot of cash and time since I'm not a fan of either genre :) .

:( Why is it that the one year of amazing gaming is the one I don't have my 360 anymore OR a PC capable of running any of these games.

Although, having beaten every aspect of the Orange Box on a borrowed 360, I have to agree with it being #1, for sheer value, awesome story for Half-life, creative idea and excellent tie in with Ep2 for Portal, and pure cel-shaded goodness for TF2.

I personally agree with most of the list, although from what I played in the Crysis beta and demo it was an average game, a lot like Far Cry, fun for a bit, but really didn't have much lasting appeal. I did really like World in Conflict, it's something different, no bases and much less resource micromanagement, a nice break from the traditional RTS. Portal is my favorite game I've played this year though!

Not bad, glad bioshock didn't get #1 it is seriously SERIOUSLY over rated, the gameplay is major suckage (art deco whack a mole as I call it).

Ok Crysis is my prefered #1 but I understand why it isn't it's quite a niche product thanks to it's tech requirements and 'non standard gameplay' that FAR TOO MANY players completely miss the point of, they run and gun through the game and wonder what the big deal is? Take your time, use stealth, have fun - it's the most amazing interactive experience i've EVER had and i've been gaming since my Atari VCS in 1981! (i'm 33 btw).

Ok so for me

Crysis
Orange Box
> everything else
>Bioshock (it does have some good qualities but on PC at least it was a major hassle and an annoyance to actuall 'work with' and then once you did you got very boring repetitive gameplay, most people are fooled by the story/theme and think it's better than what it is - I judge games on the interaction/immersion/gameplay NOT on the stories (no game story comes close to a good book).

And I wish people who cleary haven't played Crysis on a system that does it justice woulds top saying how it's 'all about the graphics', the graphics just happen to be amazing, the most realistic and immersive ever (ever!) but that's a bonus. The real genius of the game is in the pseudo free roaming, the physics and the choices/thinking that pull you into the game. Each fight in Crysis is played out how you want it to play out, you make the action you don't have to rely on cinematic set pieces to wow you (which gets old fast and has no reason for replay) in Crysis all the best 'wow' moments are created by the player themselves which is an AMAZING and GROUNDBREAKING acheivement. The graphics (on high/very high setting) merely serve to make the whole experience believable and worthy.

I'm waiting for a year from now when people upgrade and try Crysis again and start eating their words, this isn't just a game that should be on a game of the year shortlist it is pretty much THE game in it's genre since gaming began to really deliver on the entire 'interactive experience' premise. Everything else is a linear rollercoaster ride through set-piece-city and the sooner more people realise this the sooner more developers will start to take more risks on technology and experimentation.

Come Crysis 3 there will be thousands of players eating their words (with their shiny new Geforce 11's or whatever).

Bioshock on the other hand? Most people couldn't even be bothered to finish the game after half way (If it wasn't crashing) and those that did were rewarded with a very bad ending(s) and just more 'plasmid fodder dumbos' respwaning at you. YAWN.

All other games in the list deserve to be there in some way (even Cod4 which is also a dissapointing SINGLE player experience, especially once you've witness crysis on a good system). But Bioshock should be way lower or not even in there, all this praise does for Bioshock is encourage other devs to release crap gameplay games with 'pretty themes' and "wanna be novel writer storie's" instead of concentrating on ergonomics, gameplay and replayability. I'd rather read a good book than play Bioshock and i'm sure it's less buggy and less annoying.

Originally Posted by wuyanxuwell, seems like we've got a xbox360 gamer here.

STALKER was one of the major release for FPS-RPG game, as for Crysis, you need to fully experience it to know how great it is. sure, the gameplay gets old after a while, but that doesn't make it a bad game, in fact, i consider Crysis to be up there, with Bioshock and Orange Box because of its developer's courage to push the boundaries of gaming.

Well I do spend most of my gaming time on a 360 seeing as how I've not had the cash to upgrade my pc in quite some time but I wouldn't call myself a 360-exclusive-gamer. I missed out on S.T.A.L.K.E.R. somehow, a fact I don't really see as that surprising considering how ridiculous this year was for amazing games being released. Furthermore you must admit though that the talk about Crysis has focused primarily on the merits of its jaw-on-the-floor ridiculous graphics though. And being someone whose PC is prolly likely unable to render those ridiculous graphics at anything better than 3 FPS at 300x400 resolution unless I find a way to cool my pc with liquid nitrogen and overclock it waaaaaaaaaaaay past the manufacturer's recommended specifications my only interaction with Crysis has been to 'oooooh' at the screenshots, flip through some reviews and go back to playing something my computer can run... like StarCraft :D.